{"id":19643,"date":"2025-04-28T08:37:11","date_gmt":"2025-04-28T06:37:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.haslinger-nagele.com\/news\/umweltverfahren-grenzen-und-fehl-interpretationen-der-uvp-kumulation\/"},"modified":"2025-05-07T14:43:00","modified_gmt":"2025-05-07T12:43:00","slug":"umweltverfahren-grenzen-und-fehl-interpretationen-der-uvp-kumulation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.haslinger-nagele.com\/en\/umweltverfahren-grenzen-und-fehl-interpretationen-der-uvp-kumulation\/","title":{"rendered":"Environmental procedures: limits and (mis)interpretations of EIA cumulative assessments"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The recent ruling of the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court (VwGH) regarding the construction waste landfill in Fisching (VwGH August 29th, 2024, Ra 2022\/07\/0025)<\/strong>, along with the precedent cited therein (especially VwGH December 17th, 2009, Ro 2018\/04\/0012), has led to numerous and now widely discussed uncertainties in connection with EIA cumulative assessments \u2013 a topic of high practical relevance that is inherently complex, and often characterized by confusion and overlap. So, what are the new developments all about, and what are the consequences for you as a project applicant?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If your project is subject to an EIA anyway (because you reach the relevant threshold), nothing changes: From your project’s perspective, under section 6 para. 1 (4) lit. d<\/strong> of the Austrian EIA Act 2000 (UVP-G 2000) (description of the likely significant effects of the project on the environment due to the interaction of its effects with those of other existing or approved projects in your EIA report), all existing and anticipated impacts<\/strong> must be considered as a zero-plan case<\/strong> (“Nullplanfall”), i.e., as pre-existing burden<\/strong>. The findings in the Fisching construction waste landfill ruling have no effect<\/strong> on this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court (VwGH August 29th, 2024, Ra 2022\/07\/0025) may be relevant in cases where a project is not, by itself, subject to an EIA, but might be when considered in connection with other projects. In such cases, the Supreme Administrative Court states in the aforementioned decision that for a cumulative assessment under section 3 para. 2 of the EIA Act 2000, both the cumulative consideration of thresholds and any subsequent case-by-case assessment of cumulative environmental effects must take into account projects that are spatially related<\/strong> to the future project in terms of the protected interests affected \u2013 insofar as interactions between their effects<\/strong> and those of the future project on individual environmental assets<\/strong> cannot be ruled out from the outset as being environmentally insignificant. Referring to the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the ruling further specifies that this concerns environmental impacts that are of greater importance <\/strong>due to the impacts of other projects. Specifically, according to the findings of the Supreme Administrative Court in the case of the construction waste landfill in Fisching, this pertains to<\/p>\n\n\n\n